M j M
-
Posts
11,990 -
Joined
-
Days Won
34
Posts posted by M j M
-
-
Leeds may be able to accommodate Watkins with home-grown player exemptions and some shuffling about (anyone need a young half back with a big name on a year's non-returnable loan?)
-
37 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:
Nobody is up-rooting their life to move for a career opportunity in Featherstone.
Now that's obviously unnecessary hyperbole, if nothing else there are some seriously big multinationals with bases in Fev's industrial area to the west and I know some people who have relocated there because of that.
But yes by definition compared to a large university city it's a small number.
-
10 minutes ago, sam4731 said:
But why does it either or? Rugby 7s does very well under its own steam without sacricing 15s.
*rugby union 7s
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:
I think that the Giants need a smaller venue in which they can reinvent themselves, their identity and what they offer the people of Huddersfield, and that appears to be the view that Ken Davy has taken.
I don't think anybody is disputing this.
But the answer is not to move to play in front of even smaller crowds in a different town.
-
4
-
-
A couple of seasons of not being a Super League basketcase and suddenly every Leigh fan is Peter Deakin.
-
5
-
-
1 minute ago, The Daddy said:
You thought the Super 8s were something good to sell to broadcasters?
It clearly was, whilst lots of other things were happening that was one of the hooks that saw the game's largest tv deal being signed.
-
25 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:
Wilderspool was a proper atmospheric RL ground. The HJ isn’t and never will be.
The HJ is a very atmospheric stadium, I honestly don't know why people would pretend it isn't.
-
4
-
-
Do the RFL have rules on clubs moving towns?
-
26 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:
A few more details coming out now with Davy saying that he will pay for the initial improvements if he buys the stadium but it will mean a rent increase for the 2 clubs and then when the Giants move out the clubs will be offered the chance to buy the stadium back but the price will have to reflect the improvements that have been made.
Im really not sure what is in it for Fax or Town, neither club can afford this. Its hard to see this going ahead.That makes it a pretty hard and unpleasant pill to swallow for the Halifax clubs.
The whole thing continues to make zero sense to me and I really hope it doesn't happen.
-
3
-
-
13 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:
There is no doubt LED boards offer commercial advantages, but I am no expert and do not know the level of financial gains.
However Trinity will get full benefit as they own the ground. Other clubs also have boards and also get points for this. However do they get full financial benefits or do their landlords also get a cut.
That's all true but the claim was they will help to generate a superb atmosphere at the ground. I think that aspect is dubious at best.
-
6 minutes ago, OMEGA said:
- Pre match displays & shows will incorporate the LED boards thus helping to create a superb atmosphere alongside lasers, fireworks, smoke, flames & sound system
It's good to see but I think this is somewhat overselling the impact these boards will have.
-
Am I right in thinking that the Board at Salford currently comprises Paul King and no-one else? And he is stuck because he can't resign even if he wanted to?
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, dboy said:
People only repeat that fact because certain others suggest it's someone else's fault/responsibility.
Has anyone seriously said that though?
-
1 hour ago, dboy said:
Why do you think that?
SRD haven't repaid any of the money loaned to them over a number of years.
Why would the council write off the loans, but not the rent?
Like I said it hasn't been made public that they are or have written off the rent. We're going round in circles on what constitutes a liability. For SRD as long as that hasn't happened, and we have no evidence that it has, the liability remains and the impact of the rent in the P&L stands, which was the original point.
-
Ernest Marples on the run.
-
7 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:
As I understand it (and this is just hearsay, it could be wrong) previous seasons (the Council have bought the stadium themselves ahead of this season) the Council were guarantors for the club and were responsible for any rent that was not paid by the club to their landlord.
Would this mean that underpayments of rent (as the club were widely reported to regularly make) wouldn't show in the accounts because the Council would be liable for the debt?
In such a case the liability would still rest with Salford regardless and would still be a liability in their accounts unless specifically written off by the council, which I don't believe has been the case.
-
24 minutes ago, dboy said:
The council pay the portion of the rent that SRD fail to pay.
The rent is paid in full - just not by SRD.
As such there is no debt on their books...but it comes out of the council pot.
The club incurs the expense, whether it pays it or not. I can't see anything that says the club's rent arrears have been written off.
-
9 minutes ago, dboy said:
Salford Council pay the SRD defaulted rent amount, so there is no debt recorded against them for that.
The rent is paid - but not by SRD.
I don't think the council has written off any liabilities owed by Salford? So the liability will still be on the club's books.
-
1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:
I like this part of their statement:-
"However, we believe that additional due diligence within the reporting system may be necessary to maintain a level playing field."
The thing is I don't think anyone is questioning Salford's IMG score as not being accurate.
-
21 minutes ago, DEANO said:
Forgive my naivety and keep on spending what you haven’t got
Sorry for pointing out that you made a nonsense point, but you feel free to abruptly change the subject.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, DEANO said:
How much would their losses be if they paid everyone they owe plus the advance they’ve brought forward
That's not how profit and loss works.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, DEANO said:
Is that cos they don’t pay their bills
That doesn't make any sense.
-
54 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:
Just my opinion but I fail to see how a club who was/is weeks away from going bankrupt, can be deemed the 12th strongest club. Doesn't matter how many tiktok followers you have if you can't pay players wages.
Finances account for 4.5. points out of 20 in the IMG rankings. Some of the reasons Salford are weak financially will spill over into other areas, especially fandom, but the assessment wasn't ever set up to be solely a measure of financial stability. Or, going back to previous arguments, about quality of stadium.
Like it or not it was a blended average of a range of metrics and Salford are obviously better off than Championship clubs in lots of the other ones.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:
Which is why I'm so annoyed the sport finds itself in this situation in the IMG era as their vision was based purely on business cases.
No it wasn't
-
3
-
1
-
Huddersfield Giants
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
100% this.
If all you knew about Ken Davy was his skills in the business of running Huddersfield Giants you would think he was an appalling businessman.